October 4, 2006
National Science Foundation
A copy of these minutes can be downloaded as a pdf: <200610ficmi.pdf>.
Executive Summary:
The UNOLS Fleet
Improvement Committee (FIC) met on October 4, 2006 at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in
The status of FOFC’s
Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan was provided.
The draft document was presented on 14 September to the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST) and it is now in formal
agency review. The Plan addresses all
Federal Research and Survey vessels, not just the Academic Research Fleet. Based on agency projections, the overall
fleet size will decrease by about 15 ships from 2005 to 2025.
A good part of the FIC
meeting was devoted to review of the draft UNOLS Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP)
update. The FIC endorsed a
reclassification of UNOLS Ship Classes.
Fleet utilization trends, projections, and vessel service life estimates
were discussed. The FIC will continue
work on the draft document by scheduling periodic phone conferences to review
the draft.
Other meeting discussion items included a report by Kendra Daly of the ORION Office, Global Science Mission Requirements (SMR), ADA guidelines for research vessels, and the load handling systems for R/V Sharp and Kilo Moana.
Action Items:
|
Task
Description |
Action |
|
Ocean Class Planning – Provide input when requested |
FIC |
|
Global Class: Update SMRs (ongoing) |
Global Class SMR
Committee |
|
KILO MOANA Actions: |
|
|
·
Contact Brian Taylor to keep abreast of
Handling System details. |
Dave H. |
|
·
Draft EOS or other appropriate article |
Dave and Brian Taylor |
|
Design and Constructions Efforts
- Stay engaged in ongoing design and construction efforts (Regional
Class, ARRV, Langseth Conversion, etc.) |
FIC |
|
Fleet
Improvement Plan Update: ·
Complete all writing assignments and have next
draft available for review prior to the next meeting. |
FIC |
|
Ocean
Observatories – Stay in contact with ORION Office. |
Dave Hebert |
|
· Provide draft UNOLS Fleet guidelines (structural and procedural) in Fall 2006 |
|
Appendices:
|
I |
|
|
II |
|
|
III |
|
|
IV |
|
|
V |
|
|
VI |
|
|
VII |
Load
Handling System Report |
|
VIII |
Meeting Summary Report:
Call the Meeting: The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC)
met on October 4, 2006 at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in
A motion was made to accept the minutes of the March
2006 FIC Meeting. The motion passed.
Review FIC Action/Task
List from March meeting – Dave Hebert
reviewed the status of the Committee action items (Appendix III):
Tasks and Status:
-
Dave contact Brian
Taylor to keep abreast of Handling System details (the handling system has not
been delivered yet)
-
Draft EOS or other
appropriate article (after the handling system is installed)
-
Provide preliminary
recommendations to NSF for Regional Class Construction effort – complete.
Prepare draft UNOLS Fleet ADA Guidelines - ongoing
Fleet Renewal Activities:
Regional Class Acquisition Status – Mike Reeve (NSF)
reported on the Regional Class status.
The solicitation for design/build teams was announced in the end of
2005. About seven bids were received and
two $1M contracts were awarded in April 2006 to two competing design/shipyard
teams. The group of UNOLS advisors will
participate in three design review meetings for each team. Additionally, there will be three status
reviews with just the agency and PEOShips representatives. They have had the first status review
meetings and they feel that the teams are focusing a great deal of effort on
achieving the science mission requirements.
NSF would like the teams to focus a bit more on keeping the costs under
control. When the designs are complete
they will be submitted to NAVSEA with a firm fixed fee cost. The complete designs are expected in the
summer 2007.
The solicitation for the
Regional ship operator has been drafted and is now in the clearance process
within NSF. It may be ready within a
month.
Discussion:
·
Q)
Dan Schwartz asked if there was a requirement for the design not to exceed 300
Gross Registered Tonnage and be uninspected.
Reply) Dave Barksdale replied no.
The statement of requirements states that the ship will be inspected and
must meet SOLAS. Dan explained that
based on his experience with operating both inspected and uninspected ships, he
feels strongly that these ships should not exceed 300 GT. There are layers of regulatory bureaucracy
required with an inspected ship. These
requirements in turn drive up the operating costs for the vessel.
·
Al
Suchy reinforced this comment and added that although there is a desire for a
robust science platform, the ships must be affordable to build and operate.
·
Mike
Reeve thought that the opportunity to provide this input to the design teams
will be at the design review meeting.
Looking at priorities on how to redesign for less cost should be done by
the UNOLS advisors, NSF and PEO-Ships ahead of the design review meeting using
the 2004 UNOLS SMR prioritization document.
NSF has issued a change order to cap the cost of the construction. This is a major milestone.
·
While
there is good guidance to the teams on cost, there has not been sufficient
guidance on the tradeoffs. The teams are
not being given input on the tradeoff priorities. Now is the time to address lifecycle
costs. The gross tonnage will have an
impact on costs.
·
Al
Suchy suggested that now is the time to introduce the design teams to other
important issues such as
·
Mike
Reeve stated that Bob Herman (PEO-Ships) had announced during the
·
Mike
Prince commented that the tonnage issue was considered during the SMR
development, but at that time Naval architects didn’t think it was feasible to
meet the SMRs and stay below 300 GT.
·
Peter
Wiebe inquired about the day rate cap that had been suggested for this Class
some time back. It doesn’t appear that
the information had been provided to the design teams.
·
Bob
Detrick asked if the cost estimate would be adequate to build the ship.
o
Reply)
Mike Reeve explained that they are currently working with a one-year
estimate. The estimate was made at the
end of December 2005 by an independent consultant with an attempt at projecting
to 2007 and 2008 costs. In FY08, they
will request year-2 funds and if necessary, they can request an increase in
funds to meet construction.
Alternatively, they can reduce the capabilities of the ship. The FY07 budget is $56M.
Ocean
Class Acquisition Process Status and Timeline (Bob Houtman) – In the spring 2006, the
Chief of Naval Research and the Undersecretary of the Navy asked that a Naval
Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) be formed to evaluate the Navy's investment
in research vessels for the academic fleet and to make recommendations about
the level of support the Navy should provide for fleet renewal. The recommendations of the NRAC were made to
the Secretary of the Navy who reported to Congress. The NRAC concluded that the
association with UNOLS was in fact very beneficial to the Navy; however, the
level of their utilization justified the construction of two new Ocean Class
vessels instead of the previously planned four.
Instead of using Ship Construction Navy (SCN) funds, which are stretched
by the Navy’s operational fleet requirements, they will propose alternate
funding mechanisms for funding these vessels in the FY08 budget
submission. A chart shows these ships
entering service in 2014 and 2015 (provided funds are budgeted). It is probable that during FY07, ONR will
work with PEO-Ships, the Oceanographer of the Navy, UNOLS, etc. to develop
requirements and start the formal acquisition process.
·
Rob
Pinkel asked if the Navy has any plans to construct Global ships. Bob replied, “No.”
·
Peter
Wiebe asked how the FOFC Fleet report would be impacted by this. Bob indicated that he would talk about this
later in the meeting.
·
Peter
Wiebe asked if there had been any thought on the impact of this new Ocean Class
construction timeline on the service life of the Intermediate ships. Reply) Bob stated that this is a topic of
continuing interest. Bob said that ONR
does not plan on any SLEPS but can't answer for NSF who owns the Intermediate
ships. Also the actual projections
should be refined to take into account new requirements from OOI, etc.
·
Bob
commented that the Navy made their decision based on their equity in the Fleet.
Two ships was the right number for their investment.
FOFC Long-Range
Fleet Renewal Plan Status and Recommendations - Bob Houtman reported
on the status of the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) [soon to
become the Interagency Working Group for Facilities (IWG-F)] Long-Range Fleet
plan. The draft document was presented
on 14 September to the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology
(JSOST) and it is now in formal agency review.
After agency review, the document will go to the Interagency Committee
on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI) for review.
Bob
presented two figures from the draft document (Appendix IV). The first showed fleet projections for all
Federal research and survey vessels and the other showed the planned renewal
efforts. The first chart shows a decline
of about 15 ships from 2005 to 2025.
During this period there is an increase in Ocean Research and Ocean
Fisheries Survey vessels, but there is a decrease in Intermediate Research and
Regional Fisheries Survey vessels. The intermediate ships decline sharply.
The
second slide shows the IWG-F renewal plans.
OMB has indicated that the only vessels that can be included in the plan
are those that have been formally requested in a budget or formally
approved. The two Ocean Class ships have
been included in the plan, but OMB might object. Bob Houtman stated that the Navy’s support
remains fairly constant through 2025.
When Knorr and Melville go off line, the new Ocean
Class ships will begin operation.
Ocean Observatories – Kendra Daly (ORION Program Director) provided a status report on facility needs, timelines and implementation plans. Her slides are included as Appendix V. She reported that Bob Detrick had served as the ORION Observatory Steering Committee Chair, but has stepped down. Jim Yoder is the new Chair.
In April 2005 the ORION Office issued a Request for
Assistance Proposals (RFA). The
submission of about 48 full proposals, representing input from more than 550
investigators and direct participants was received. The observatory conceptual design was
developed using the ideas submitted in the RFA Proposals and previous workshop
reports. In March 2006, a design and implementation workshop was held in
Kendra showed the conceptual design outline. However, in the last six weeks they have received direction from NSF that they stay within a $50M Operations and maintenance (O&M) cap. This will require some further reduction in the scope of the design.
A map of the Regional Cabled Observatory (RCO) was
presented showing its six nodes (may be reduced), cables, and junctions. The observatory is on the Juan de Fuca
Plate. Node 4 is located at Axial
Volcano. RCO has the highest density of
ODP holes in the Ocean basins. Another
dimension of the RCO is moorings. There
will also be a northern loop installed by Neptune
The RCO facility requirements were reviewed. It is estimated that 160 Global ship days would be needed per year for O&M. The operating window is May to October. The ships should be capable of supporting a working class ROV up to sea state 5. The ROV must be capable of laying cables up to 5-7 km, placing instruments in predetermined locations, and connecting ROV laid cables to instruments of extension cables to EOM cable moorings.
Kendra next discussed Coastal Observatories including the
Endurance Coastal Array in the Pacific NW.
They will need to look at initial costs versus maintenance cost for the
array. Cabled observatories might be
more expensive to install, but cheaper to operate. The Pioneer Coastal Array includes suites of
gliders and profiling moorings. This
could be moveable and recompeted every five years to find different
locations. It is currently planned for
the Mid-Atlantic Bight. The East Coast
Endurance Coastal Array near
The Coastal Observatory facility requirements for O&M of the Endurance array per year are 24 small vessel days, 24 Regional ship days, and 20 days of a Regional ship with ROV. The facility needs for the Pioneer Array include 16 days for deployment, 14 days for O&M, plus 5 ship days with an ROV.
Kendra continued with discussion of the Global Buoy sites. Eleven sites had been planned, but they have de-scoped to 9 sites. This will be reassessed. There are several different types of buoys including the generic discus buoy with EOM cable, generic acoustically linked discus buoy, and the high latitude spar buoy. The facility requirements for 11 Global buoy sites were estimated at 164 Global ship days per year for O&M plus 5 days with an ROV and 44 Intermediate class ship days.
As part of OOI de-scoping effort, they will work to
maintain the transformative nature of the initiative. For example, this might mean deploying the
SPAR buoys in a location closer to the
The OOI project timeline was reviewed. There is $13.5M in the 2007 MRE account, but the Presidents budget has not yet passed. There could be buoy deployments as early as 2009. Some initial infrastructure deployments would include these buoys, but it would not be until 2012 before the entire system is commissioned.
Discussion:
· What would the $50M O&M budget cover? Kendra) The O&M budget would includes buoy, cable, node and instrumentation maintenance as well as management, of the cyber infrastructure support, etc. It does not include the facility support for science operations
· Rob Pinkel – Where will the funds to support Ocean Observatory science operations come from? Is this new money, or would it come out of the science budget? Mike Reeve) Installation funds are supported by the MRE account. The MRE account cannot support O&M. Support for Ocean Observatory science will require additional funds.
Integrated Ocean Observing
System (IOOS) - Stephen
Piotrowicz, Deputy Director of Ocean.US, provided a report on IOOS. His slides are included as Appendix
VI. The coastal components of
the IOOS are in the stage of assessing what is actually out there. By next spring they should have that
information and then they can make some assessments about the ship time
requirements for maintaining this infrastructure.
The global
component of the IOOS is fairly well defined and ship time requirements can be
accounted for. The components include
the TOGA/TAO array, CLIVAR, Reference
Stations, etc. Steve presented a table showing NOAA’s annual contribution of ship days at sea for FY07 to FY12. In FY07, NOAA ship day total is estimated at 556 days. The support increases each year with a total of 912 ship days in FY12. The ship days support a variety of IOOS initiatives that are listed in the table. The table also indicates the International ship day goal for each of the initiatives. The International days total 1650 ship days.
Next Steve presented a map of profiles obtained in Jul
2006. Argo provided a global set of
observations totaling 7628. When Argo is
fully deployed, it will have over 8000 observations a month. He presented a map of the Argo Network as of
January 2004 and the international partnerships. There were a total of 1043 floats, but few
were located in the southern ocean. By
August 2006, the number of Argo floats had increased to 2531. The addition of floats before 2006 has been
mostly accomplished using ships of opportunity.
To add sites, they have used designated charters and they have added
days for more collection of data. There
will be additional deployment opportunities using charter vessels. They plan to use small vessels to deploy
floats in the more remote areas; an example is the NIWA from
Power is the limiting factor of the arrays and they have been working to redesign the arrays to increase the battery lifetime. Steve showed a chart with the Argo decay rates for the years 2001 through 2006. He noted that because of new regulations, they are not allowed to ship the floats with the batteries installed. Their goal is to get a 5-year lifetime out of the floats to reduce the cost.
Two types of floats were presented. These included the biogeochemical floats and the acoustically-tracked profiling floats that can operate under seasonal ice. There is always a desire to add sensors onto the floats. In addition to temperature, oxygen, wind, and currents; other sensors are being investigated.
Next Steve showed the conceptual plan for Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) buoy locations. A total network of 39 buoys is planned and 19 have been installed.
IOOS will try to move towards autonomous instruments, moorings (such as the DART arrays) and gliders. The gliders could be used for coverage at the edges of the Argo Array. Although they are slow moving, the can maintain arrays in boundary currents and other localized features.
Steve wrapped up by summarizing that they have been implement the Argo Array with vessels of opportunity (VOS), charters for remote coverage, and a small amount of dedicated ship time.
Discussion:
· Peter Wiebe commented that most of the Argo buoy capabilities focused on the physical parameters. Has there been any consideration of biological parameters?
o Steve P) This is true, they are studying how to address biological parameters. They are trying to determine how to collect biological data in a useful, timely manner. They do collect chemical data.
· Peter Wiebe commented that the IOOS development plan includes the statement that ship needs would be addressed with FOFC. Is FOFC aware of this and what is the status?
o Steve P) FOFC has been made aware. The requirements are available to FOFC in terms of Global needs. The IOOS requirements are probably not going to be met by only the two NOAA ships. In the out years, IOOS plans to include in ship charter funds into their budget.
· Mike Prince) The charts show NOAA contributions. Have other agencies contributed?
o Steve P) The NSF support is included and is anticipated to continue on a ten year cycle. This level of effort would be included in projections based on past utilization.
· Peter Wiebe) – How are the float calibrations maintained?
o Steve P) They have been surprised about the stability of the floats. The floats must be calibrated, but it doesn’t seem to be a serious an issue. They have seen very little drift, particularly in salinity.
· Clare Reimers) How much coordination is there between IOOS and ORION?
o Reply) The Atlantic coastal component is well coordinated because of similar people being involved, but this is probably less so in the Pacific NW. Coordination is ongoing and will improve as time goes on. Kendra emphasized that because IOOS and ORION are both in the planning stages, a lot of the coordination is at the grass roots level as well as some formal interchange of information. She meets with Mary Altalo (Ocean.US Director) regularly and there is cross-fertilization between the two programs.
· Al Hine asked about sensor development. Will it be through solicitations?
o The two mechanisms that have been used are the Navy or other agency SBIR process and through specific NOPP solicitations for interagency efforts. Technology developments are focusing on telecommunications and perhaps on some competition in CTD manufacturers.
1030 Break
Global Science
Discussion followed on the Global Class Mid-Life Refit plans:
·
The Navy plans to carry out incremental
improvements to the Global ships instead of the traditional dedicated mid-life
shipyard periods of the past. There
will be funding for improvements as need through enhanced shipyard availabilities
and instrumentation funding. Al Suchy
commented that as long as the mission requirements for the ships are level,
the incremental mid-life improvements would be fine. Major improvements are not envisioned as part
of the incremental mid-life refits.
·
Mike Prince stated that the Global SMRs
could be useful in planning for the Global mid-life improvements.
·
Annette asked if the incremental improvements
would impact the service life expectancy of the ships.
o Al Suchy said that they probably would not, but it should be watched as
the ships age.
·
Peter Wiebe asked if incremental mid
life improvements are the new way of the Navy?
o Reply) Possibly, but it will depend on a number of factors. If there was a community developed
requirement for major changes to the global ships, then a proposal could be
developed to make these changes through a major refit. These decisions would be made on an individual
ship basis.
Load Handling Systems –
Matt Hawkins provided a status report
on the Load Handling Systems for Hugh R. Sharp and Kilo Moana. His slides are included as Appendix
VII. NSF and ONR funded the
Load Handling System Symposium. The goal
was to review existing technologies and systems to develop a set of standard
Functional Requirements (specs) to show “Proof of Concept” for new
capabilities. It was not to evaluate any
particular vendor. The secondary goal
was to dispel some common myths; such as, “You can’t put the docking head in
the water! It won’t survive!” or “the
winch will be huge if winch pay-in/pay-out used for mo-comp! Can’t handle accelerations! Won’t work!” or
“You need to have a locking mechanism to capture the package! Anything else is unsafe!”
Two systems were produced by Caley Ocean Systems in
accordance with the “Functional Requirements” developed during the study. The R/V Sharp was delivered in May and
was funded by U. Delaware. The system
for R/V Kilo Moana is still in development. Conceptually the systems for each ship are
the same, but there is a different handling appliance and winch size. The Final Phase of the load handling study
consists of field evaluations after installation. Evaluations are in progress
on Sharp.
New capabilities of the handling system include:
•
Motion
Compensation by winch pay-in/pay-out – reduces heave of package in water column
for better data resolution and lower cable strain.
•
Docking Head
with “Auto-Position” capability – no tag lines.
The operator can set package on deck without assistance.
•
“Tow Mode”
(Auto Render) – used for towing and in dealing with wire SWL issues.
Matt showed three movie clips. The first clip was taken offshore
Next Matt showed the data. The first chart shows a bottle trip graph
with no motion compensation. In the next
chart, the motion compensation is on and there is less saw tooth pattern, but
there is a slow creep-up when the motion compensation is on.
A picture of the control panel was presented. Only two controls are needed.
Some of the issues that still need to be evaluated
include:
•
Cost – was it worth
it? ($500 - $750K)
•
Complexity?
•
Motion
Compensation – does it work? Is it of
benefit to BOTH vessel and science? Appears
so – but it needs tests with greater depth and higher tensions.
•
Docking Head –
Does it work? Is it safer?
•
“Tow Mode”
(Auto Render) – Does it work? Is it safer?
How do we test? Can it satisfy
USCG and ABS? In Progress.
•
ABS Standards –
Comparison with same system under
Matt discussed the safe working loads. The draft UNOLS Wire Safe Working Load (SWL)
standards are currently under review by the RVOC Safety Committee. It will be presented and reviewed by RVTEC on
October 16th. The plan is to
eventually include it in the Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS).
Discussion:
·
Clare asked if
it is difficult to change packages. Matt
Hawkins – Conceptually it should be able to run multiple packages. R/V Sharp has some deck space
constraints. The Kilo Moana would
be more flexible. A saddle would be
needed to accommodate other packages.
Also the wire must be compatible.
Other heave comp winches can be used.
Matt explained that drum changes can be done, but it is a logistical
pain. It would be best to have more
winches.
·
Dave Hebert
reported that U. Hawaii hopes to receive their system within the next six
months. They would like to be able to
try out the system while still in local waters.
·
Dolly asked
that we include the results of the evaluation on the posted symposium website.
Lunch Break